First I will ask that my opponent forfeit last round as this debate is going to be in LD format.

Quote: "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with but I know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Since I agree with Albert Einstein I must Affirm the resolution that states ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Define:
States- as a nation.
Morality - Which is the rightness or wrongness of actions

Value is Utilitarianism - Which is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

My Criterion is Minimizing risk and increasing Security.

Contention 1 : The possession of nuclear weapons are immoral when put to a utilitarianism stance. If we look at nuclear weapons in a utilitarianism stand point they just dont hold up. This is because nuclear weapons are extremely deadly, If the heat dont kill you that goes about 6 miles killing instantly then the blast or radiation will. Nuclear weapons also cause a EMP so medical attention or support is going to take some time. Nuclear weapons are also a threat to everyone not providing the most happiness to the greatest number of people.

Contention 2: Nuclear weapons are in every since of the word paper weights, This is because nuclear weapons only deter nuclear weapons. If state A Conventionally attacks state B and they both have nukes, state B will of course attack back with conventional weapons. In which case nuclear weapons have not deterred or stopped this conflict and Mutually Assured Destruction has done nothing and falls.

Contention 3: The possession of Nuclear Weapons is a useless unbenificial risk to society. In the states that MAD doesn't work then its only a matter of time before an accident or worse.

As can clearly be read, Einstein did not say that WWIII will be fought with nuclear weapons, whereas WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones due to usage of nuclear weapons in WWIII. He rather predicted new military technology, and nothing particular. It would indeed be illogical to say that only nuclear weapons are capable of destroying the whole world, and I doubt that Einstein referred to them. I will elaborate.

1.2 Contention 1

My opponent argued against nuclear weapons being immortal from the perspective of utilitarianism. He moved on to say that nuclear weapons are extremely deadly. I disagree with the first part, but agree with the second. The problem with my opponent's argument is that it completely singles out nuclear weapons as deadly weapons, as if they were the only "extremely deadly" weapons. We have very powerful and deadly weapons which are, in fact, non-nuclear. A good example is a weapon which holds the nickname "The Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB).[1] The effect can be seen on YouTube --> watch?v=f_gk49n5djw.

Disregarding that fact, we also have another weapon which is - according to Russian sources - four times more powerful than MOAB. It is called "The Father of All Bombs" (FOAB).[2] The effect can be seen on YouTube --> watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM. I ask, do we really get ourselves rid of extremely deadly weapons if we abolish all the nuclear weapons? No, we do not. In fact, we have such a high amount of powerful weapons that if WWIII took place even without nuclear weapons, we could guarantee that most of the world would be put into ruins. Let us analyze some powerful military mights in the world.

1. North Korea:

Tanks: 3,500-4,500
Artilleries: 15,000+ (with mortars)

2. Russia

Tanks: 22,800
Artilleries: 13,000+

3. China

Tanks: 8,200
Artilleries: 14,000

See sources #3, #4, and #5. These military powers have both enormous amounts of tanks and artilleries. North Korea might even have the largest artillery force in the world. The North Korean artillery pieces are placed near the border between their nation and South Korea. If those two countries went to war, North Korea would be able to turn Seoul, the capital of South Korea, into mere dust and ruins, unless there is a great resistance. I ask, what is there to prevent such a war from occurring? Both nations have very powerful weapons (and having the largest artillery force in the world is indeed a mighty thing), but what is one of the main deterrents of a possible war? Nuclear weapons. The United States is an ally of South Korea, and it would never allow North Korea to invade it. However, out of all weapons, the ones that North Korea fears the most are nuclear weapons. Should they be the aggressors, should they be about to annihilate South Korea, nothing would prevent USA from launching nuclear strikes against North Korea and eliminating it entirely.

1.2 Contention 2

It is not true that "nuclear weapons only deter nuclear weapons." Do you know why we have not had a major world war since the WWII? Due to nuclear weapons. The Warsaw Pact would have waged war against NATO had a military fight been with tanks and artilleries. But no, a necessary fight would turn out to be with usage of nuclear weapons, and which side would dare using them? Neither. What did this lead to? It lead to a world without a major world war for decades, and today we are all witnesses to that. The reason why nations fear using nuclear weapons against each other is because there is no hope for victory on the attacking side; using 100 nuclear weapons can lead to brutal consequences for the rest of the world. Using most nuclear weapons would turn this world into a planet without homo sapiens. However, with usage of decent military weapons, such as tanks, the military powers at least have hopes of beating the enemy without destroying themselves. That is why all other weapons besides nuclear weapons are pretty weak when it comes to major war deterrence.

1.3 Contention 3

The nations with most nuclear weapons are Russia and the United States of America. For any of these two nations to successfully eliminate one another, they would have to use so many nuclear weapons that the mushroom clouds (smoke) would cover the atmosphere and block sunlight access, which would lead to fatal consequences for the entirely world, hereby also the attacking nation. Therefore, I say that people are very mistaken when it comes to Mutually Assured Destruction. A major nuclear strike will both be suicidal for the victimized nation, but also the attacking nation. Even if USA bombs Russia entirely, and Russia does not use its nuclear weapons, then USA will still suffer from a form of MAD: one caused by itself.

Of course my opponent might argue that nuclear weapons cost too much, but it is important to notice that further development of them is not allowed, neither is USA spending trillions of dollars producing them like they did in the 20th century. Right now, they are to be preserved in order to guarantee world peace. Also, I want to tell my opponent that he cannot argue for an absolute abolishment of military as a defense of his case, since the resolution specifically speaks about abolishment of nuclear weapons.